‘Hearts’ and ‘minds’: Illustrating identity tensions of people living and working through marketising policy change of allied health disability services in Australia

Abstract

Service-based caring sectors like disability are increasingly being operated via market logic, including shifts towards personalised funding. These shifts must be brought to life in/through people already located in relation to ideas and values that underpin historical policies. Our manuscript examines how identities are re/shaped in relation to marketised policy change and explores how identity change unfolds (or not) during periods of transition: situated within the transition to the National Disability Insurance Scheme executed in Australia as a major disability funding reform. Our qualitative dataset involves interview and focus group data collected with service recipients/carers (n = 28), providers/managers (n = 17) and advocates (n = 2) during shift from government- to personally-controlled funding of allied health services for people with disability in Australia (2017–2020). We used layered sociological inference to develop and interrogate processes of tension and identity change amidst lived experience(s) of policy change. Our analysis elucidates how various identities were encouraged, desired, resisted and constrained in relation to the policy transition. We bring together sub-themes from analysis of recipient/carer data (getting value-for-money; critiquing service quality; and experiencing system shortfalls) and manager/provider data (learning to transact; the call to care; and structural frictions in/and identity transitions) to interpret that recipients/carers are Feeling (like) the dollar sign and that managers/providers are Troubling profits. In both cases ‘hearts’ and ‘minds’ are perceived to be diametrically opposed and symbolic in/against processes of marketisation. We synthesise our data into an illustrative framework that facilitates understanding of how this perception of opposed ‘hearts’ and ‘minds’ seems to constrain the identity transitions encouraged by personalised funding, and explore ways in which desired identities might be supported amidst marketising policy transition.

Keywords

disability identity marketisation NDIS personalisation social/health/care services

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allen

Griffiths

Lyne

(2004) Understanding complex trajectories in health and social care provision. Sociology of Health & Illness 26(7): 1008–1030.

Allied Health Professions Australia (2021) Allied health professions. Available at: https://ahpa.com.au/allied-health-professions/ (accessed 31 January 2024).

Altwicker-Hámori

(2021) Disability insurance benefit application in Switzerland: An analysis of linked administrative and survey data. BMC Health Services Research 21(1): 982–1013.

Areheart

(2008) When disability isn’t just right: The entrenchment of the medical model of disability and the goldilocks dilemma. Indiana Law Journal 83(1): 181–232.

Attrill

Foley

Gesesew

, et al. (2023) Allied health workforce development for participant-led services: Structures for student placements in the National Disability Insurance Scheme. BMC Medical Education 23(1).

Baines

Macdonald

Stanford

(2020) Zero-sum social policy: Going gig and the Australian national disability insurance scheme. Studies in Political Economy 101(1): 17–34.

Barr

Duncan

Dally

(2021) Parent experience of the national disability insurance scheme (NDIS) for children with hearing loss in Australia. Disability & Society 36(10): 1663–1687.

Čartolovni

Stolt

Scott

, et al. (2021) Moral injury in healthcare professionals: A scoping review and discussion. Nursing Ethics 28(5): 590–602.

Cortese

Truscott

Nikidehaghani

, et al. (2021) Hard-to-reach: The NDIS, disability, and socio-economic disadvantage. Disability & Society 36(6): 883–903.

10.

Cortis

Van Toorn

(2022) Safeguarding in Australia’s new disability markets: Frontline workers’ perspectives. Critical Social Policy 42: 219.

11.

Crossley

(2022) A dependent structure of interdependence: Structure and agency in relational perspective. Sociology 56: 182.

12.

Da Roit

Le Bihan

(2010) Similar and yet so different: Cash-for-care in six European countries’ long-term care policies. Milbank Quarterly 88(3): 286–309.

13.

David

West

(2017) NDIS self-management approaches: Opportunities for choice and control or an uber-style wild west? Australian Journal of Social Issues 52(4): 331–346.

14.

Department of Social Services (2023) Allied health. Australian Government. Available at: https://www.dss.gov.au/disability-and-carers-programs-services-for-people-with-disability-national-disability-insurance-scheme/growing-the-ndis-market-and-workforce-strategy (accessed 31 January 2024).

15.

Dintino

Wakely

Wolfgang

, et al. (2019) Powerless facing the wave of change: The lived experience of providing services in rural areas under the national disability insurance scheme. Rural and Remote Health 19(3): 5337–5337.

16.

Durocher

Kinsella

(2021) Ethical tensions in occupational therapy practice: Conflicts and competing allegiances. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy 88(3): 244–253.

17.

Ezzy

(2002) Qualitative Analysis. London: Routledge.

18.

Foley

Attrill

Brebner

(2021) Co-designing a methodology for workforce development during the personalisation of allied health service funding for people with disability in Australia. BMC Health Services Research 21: 1–15.

19.

Foley

Attrill

McAllister

, et al. (2020) Impact of transition to an individualised funding model on allied health support of participation opportunities. Disability and Rehabilitation 43(21): 3021–3030.

20.

Foster

Henman

Tilse

, et al. (2016) ‘Reasonable and necessary’ care: The challenge of operationalising the NDIS policy principle in allocating disability care in Australia. Australian Journal of Social Issues 51(1): 27–46.

21.

Hammond

Cross

Moore

(2016) The construction of professional identity by physiotherapists: A qualitative study. Physiotherapy 102(1): 71–77.

22.

Horsell

(2023) Problematising disability: A critical policy analysis of the Australian national disability insurance scheme. Australian Social Work 76: 47–59.

23.

Hunter

(2003) A critical analysis of approaches to the concept of social identity in social policy. Critical Social Policy 23(3): 322–344.

24.

Kelly

(2011) Making ‘care’ accessible: Personal assistance for disabled people and the politics of language. Critical Social Policy 31(4): 562–582.

25.

Kohli

Atencio

(2023) ‘The person with a disability gets to define their disability’: Exploring identity formation through the voices of university students. Disability & Society 38: 819–841.

26.

Lakhani

McDonald

Zeeman

(2018) Perspectives of the national disability insurance scheme: Participants’ knowledge and expectations of the scheme. Disability & Society 33(5): 783–803.

27.

Lloyd

Moni

Cuskelly

, et al. (2023) National disability insurance scheme: Is it creating an ordinary life for adults with intellectual disability? Disability & Society 38: 1–20.

28.

Loadsman

Donelly

(2021) Exploring the wellbeing of Australian families engaging with the national disability insurance scheme in rural and regional areas. Disability & Society 36(9): 1449–1468.

29.

Macdonald

Bentham

Malone

(2018) Wage theft, underpayment and unpaid work in marketised social care. Economic and Labour Relations Review 29(1): 80–96.

30.

Mackey

(2007) ‘Do not ask me to remain the same’: Foucault and the professional identities of occupational therapists. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal 54(2): 95–102.

31.

Mackey

(2014) Living tensions: Reconstructing notions of professionalism in occupational therapy. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal 61(3): 168–176.

32.

Mantri

Lawson

Wang

, et al. (2020) Identifying moral injury in healthcare professionals: The moral injury symptom scale-hp. Journal of Religion and Health 59(5): 2323–2340.

33.

Meyer

Lunnay

(2013) The application of abductive and retroductive inference for the design and analysis of theory-driven sociological research. Sociological Research Online 18(1): 86–96.

34.

Mladenov

Owens

Cribb

(2015) Personalisation in disability services and healthcare: A critical comparative analysis. Critical Social Policy 35(3): 307–326.

35.

Nancarrow

Borthwick

(2005) The Allied Health Professions: A Sociological Perspective. Bristol: Bristol University Press, Policy Press.

36.

National Disability Insurance Agency (2023) History of the NDIS. Available at: https://www.ndis.gov.au/about-us/history-ndis (accessed 31 January 2024).

37.

Nikjeh

(2019) Ethical decision making: Coding and compliance dilemmas for speech-language pathologists. ASHAWIRE 4(6): 1289–1297.

38.

Oliver

(1986) Social policy and disability: Some theoretical issues. Disability Handicap & Society 1(1): 5–17.

39.

Popay

Rogers

Williams

(1998) Rationale and standards for the systematic review of qualitative literature in health services research. Qualitative Health Research 8(3): 341–351.

40.

Power

Coverdale

Croydon

, et al. (2022) Personalisation policy in the lives of people with learning disabilities: A call to focus on how people build their lives relationally. Critical Social Policy 42: 240.

41.

Richardson

(2022) Commodification and care: An exploration of workforces’ experiences of care in private and public childcare systems from a feminist political theory of care perspective. Critical Social Policy 42(1): 107–128.

42.

Schwiter

Steiner

(2020) Geographies of care work: The commodification of care, digital care futures and alternative caring visions. Geography Compass 14(12): e12546.

43.

Soldatic

Meekosha

(2012) Disability and neoliberal state formations. In: Watson

Roulstone

Thomas

(eds) Routledge Handbook of Disability Studies. London: Routledge.

44.

Souza

Duff

Swait

(2021) “Whose plan is it?” understanding how the goal pursuit of consumers and carers influence choices in the australian disability sector. Journal of Choice Modelling 40: 100300.

45.

Wilson

Campain

Pollock

, et al. (2022) Exploring the personal, programmatic and market barriers to choice in the NDIS for people with psychosocial disability. Australian Journal of Social Issues 57(1): 164–184.